Agrepina Lucero, et al., v. Michael Tachias, et al., No. A-1-CA-34995 (N.M. Ct App. October 9, 2018). The Luceros v. Tachias case involved land within the ghost town of Cabezon in northern New Mexico.  The legal dispute began when the Tachias family  brought suit against Ronald Lucero for interferring with the Tachias’ access to  their land.  The Lucero family asserted they owned certain land within the  Cabezon area, under both superior title and adverse possession.  Two trials  were held, first on the merits of the legal theories, and a second jury trial on  damages.  The Tachias family prevailed at trial, and the Luceros appeal.  In its  decision, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court in all  regards, relying upon long-standing law concerning the burden of a Plaintiff to prove superior title and adverse possession. Horace Bounds, Jr. v. Ray Hamlett, et al., 2011-NMCA-078 (N.M. Ct. App. June 13, 2011).   The Bounds v. Hamlett case began as a dispute over the election of competing  groups of commissioners for the San Lorenzo Community Ditch Association,  after Mr. Bounds elected himself and two corporations that he had leased land  to, claiming that he had 51 percent of the voting rights in the ditch, based on  his “ditch rights.”  His claim to be able to vote on his “ditch rights” was based  upon a 1982 Stipulated Judgment that had been entered in a case that Mr.  Bounds filed challenging the ability of the ditch commissioners to base voting  on water rights.  After the trial court found that neither group was validly  elected, Mr. Bounds appealed, challenging the allowable proportionate voting  methods for acequias as set out in the case of Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-  016, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153. Without addressing the scope of allowable disproportionate voting methods for acequias as Mr. Bounds had challenged, the Court of Appeals upheld the  District Court’s determination that the 1982 Stipulated Judgment, which  altered the ditch ownership and voting rights of all ditch members in a case  they were not a party to, was void and not binding on the ditch members. The Court of Appeals’ decision vindicated the voting rights of all members  of the San Lorenzo Community Ditch Association, who for nearly thirty  years had been subjected to diminished voting rights based upon Mr.  Bounds’ position that the 1982 Stipulated Judgment gave him majority  voting rights, regardless of the amount of his water rights in the ditch.    Montoya v. Tecolote Land Grant, 2008-NMCA-014, 143 N.M. 413, 176  P.3d 1145. The Tecolote Land Grant case was a challenge by the heirs of the original land  grant recipient to title to 19,320 acres of land within the Tecolote Land Grant.   The montoya family’s claims were based upon three legal theories, and they  prevailed on each one at trial.  The Court of Appeals determined that the trial  court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, because the decision changed “the  nature, character and size” of the land grant, which under Tameling v. United  States Freehold & Emigration Co., 83 U.S. 644 (1876) can only be done by an  act of Congress.  Considering the Court of Appeals decision in Tecolote Land  Grant v. Griego, 2005-NMCA-007, 136 N.M. 688, the question of how much  land one can adversely possess against a land grant, without hitting the  Tameling bar, remains unanswered.  Rosette, Inc. v U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2007-NMCA-136, 142 N.M. 717, 169 P.3d 704. Rosette pushed the envelope on the scope of water rights in New Mexico.   Rosette was using hot water from a well to heat its greenhouses, in which it  grew roses.  Rosette asked the District Court to determine that, under the  language of the State Constitution, New Mexico owned all water within the  State and that ownership included all aspects of wter - including the heat in the water.  The Court of Appeals, following prior federal court decisions, held that  the heat in the rocks (which is transferred to the water) is a “mineral.”  Since  the federal government owned the mineral rights under Rosette’s land, the hot  water was therefore subject to the federal Geothermal Steam Act. Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC, et al. v. AmeriCulture, Inc., et al.,   No. 16-2046 (10th Cir. March 12, 2018).   This case involves application of New Mexico’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute.  The New Mexico Federal District Court  ruled that New Mexico’s statute is not applicable to defendants in federal court diversity cases; the 10th Circuit upheld that decision.  The case is currently  pending an application for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Opinions

Published

Unpublished